overhead/ceiling lighting

You will know when you need something different

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

For me it was not being at ease under flickering T-12's with magnetic ballasts. I moved up to better lighting. Then as I did more hand tool work, dovetails for example, and needed to see scribe lines, it called from another upgrade to more light on the bench. I added task lighting. I have easily gone through 3 dozen iterations of various task lights. Then, I suppose it was aging eyes, it was more light over the saw, again to see scribe lines. And then it was the availability of less expensive T5-HO that enabled me to be rid of an "acre" of T-8 and T-12 fixtures over the bench. Somewhere in this odyssey I painted the shop walls and ceiling white to capture more light and send it back to the work area (it makes a substantial difference).

You will know when you need an upgrade. And then it will become important to know what is available to meet your new requirement. The more you know the less wasted resources you will spend achieving your need.

Re: overhead/ceiling lighting

Dick Coers

Just as good? Depends what you mean. Certainly not as good for energy consumption. A couple of 300 watt bulbs will bake cookies! LOL

Re: overhead/ceiling lighting

John K Jordan

I use multiple 300 watt (equiv) LED and CFL bulbs along with others 100 to 150 LED and CFL bulbs spread through several rooms of my shop. I also have some 4-bulb T5 HO fluorescent lights on separate switches when I want more light.

There is no comparison. The T5 fluorescent fixtures are FAR brighter than the 300 and 100-150 watt (equiv) bulbs.

Note that the T5 fluorescent bulbs are brighter than either the traditional T8 or T12 bulbs. I understand this is at least partly due to the internal phosphors being closer to the ionized mercury vapor inside the glass because the bulbs are smaller in diameter. They are difficult to look at directly.

JKJ

Re: overhead/ceiling lighting

Walt

There are also reasonably priced LED tubes that fit traditional 48" fluorescent fixtures. I find that they create what appears to a brighter area than T-12 or T-8 fluorescent tubes and they should live longer than fluorescent tubes, especially if they're turned on and off frequently. I've found that newer T-8 tubes don't seem to live very long when turned on and off frequently. LED tubes can be found that work with or without a ballast. I kinda prefer to remove the ballast, one less thing to go wrong.

Re: overhead/ceiling lighting

John K Jordan

>>>I've found that newer T-8 tubes don't seem to live very long when turned on and off frequently.

Compact fluorescent bulbs may be like that too. I read that when turned on a CFL should be left on for at least 15 minutes. I use CFLs in my garage and replaced them often until I started doing this. In fact, although the electrical cost is higher CFLs seem to last much longer if left on all the time.

With bulbs SEEMING to fail way too often I started writing the date on the base of each one when installed. Some bulbs quite in 3-6 months. Two years ago I started leaving the garage lights on longer before switching them off I haven't lost a bulb since.

I have other (low wattage) CFLs on an outdoor fixtures around the farm that stay on all the time - one burned continuously for over six years until when working on the power recently it quit after turning it off and on a couple of times.

I suspect the cycling issue is due to the electrical impulse and the related thermal shock. Take a CFL apart and you can see how much circuitry is packed into the base. Thermal shock is probably the most destructive for electronic devices that get hot due to the expansion and contraction of materials which can cause failure to both circuit board traces and components. Allowing things to come to thermal equilibrium makes sense for the components.

JKJ

I Totally Agree with Thermal Shock Theory

Re: Thermal shock

Larry Clinton At Frankfort, (Central) Indiana

A few years ago I went to a seminar at the University of Wisconsin regarding surface mount assembly technology including failure modes, Sigma 3 failure analysis etc. Today surface mount is the most used method of soldering electronic boards instead of the through hole method.

A major difference is that the old through hole method using leads fixed to the components then inserted through holes in the board and soldered, This allowed the wire leads to flex somewhat when the components and board expanded and contracted at different rates.

The new surface mount method has solder-able metal at each end of the component or along edges and is soldered directly to the board at these points. This does not allow for expansion or contraction. Obviously they have done a lot of design work to allow for this issue but it still remains the largest cause of failure in my opinion.